Proposition 59 is an imprudent mistake, and a familiar one at that. Too strong in its ends and too weak in its means, the advisory-only measure would, if passed, merely request that Congress take the excessive and potentially dangerous step of rewriting the First Amendment.

The language of Prop. 59 raises many more questions than it answers, forcing voters to just guess as to what the First Amendment would look like after legislators were finished with it. Its guidance is vague and overbroad. It does not offer voters a law to approve, but rather a mere opinion poll.

Cluttering an already overstuffed ballot, Prop. 59 helps encourage Californians to put more effort into using the initiative process to “send a message” to lawmakers than into considering carefully which potential laws it would be wise to support and authorize. That twists the purposes of direct democracy, strengthening the case for much stricter curbs. Over the years, California’s initiative system has already racked up a mixed record that sometimes inspires criticism – or even outright mockery.

Meanwhile, Americans’ right to freedom of speech runs broad and deep. Damage to one element of that right poses a greater threat to all, especially where free speech intersects with free association. People don’t lose their fundamental right to speech just because they have organized themselves into groups with certain terms in the name.

With its muddled advisory intent, Proposition 59 would set a harmful and wasteful precedent in the service of ill-advised constitutional meddling. These problems underscore the mischief of advisory measures. Even if well-intentioned, they can end up malicious. The First Amendment is fine just the way it is, and Californians do not need to vote on polls.